Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2014/01

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

I thought we agreed we'd stop desysopping without warning?

DaniDF1995 and Mattbr were just both desysopped for inactivity. This is fair, and I have no objection to the policy that mandates it. However, neither of their talkpages had been edited since June, when they were promoted. I find this unacceptable. These are our fellow administrators. They were entrusted with their tools by the community, in fair elections. They deserve a chance to work to retain their adminships. If they don't once notified, then they don't, and that's that. But if a little reminder rekindles some interest in the project for them, then that benefits everyone. Even if they only do the necessary 10 actions, that's 10 less actions that some other admin will have to do, 10 less things that might slip through the cracks and damage our project's reputation. But I hate to think that, if I were to go inactive for a while, I would come back one day and find all my buttons missing with no explanation. That would make me feel sad. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 20:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the RFC that recently closed did not mandate it. If you want to notify them, there is nothing stopping you. --Rs chen 7754 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are a half-broken system as it is. That "consensus" can uphold such cynicism about duly elected admins only reinforces that. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That's what happens when only a tiny fraction of the active editors here participate in the policy-side of the project. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

My point exactly. Which is why it's all the more disheartening to see that tiny fraction hold that potentially valuable contributors should be given a cold, uncaring farewell simply because there's a chance that they might commit that evil of evils, actually meeting the activity requirements. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more about account security, since they might not be around to monitor the security of their accounts. We don't want admin accounts hacked. They surely want to contribute but their real lives take it up, and they'll understand. It might be "cold" but adminship is like being a janitor, not a senator; also, admins who contribute simply because they are admins, instead of for the better good of the project, aren't really valuable. The RfCs really do need to be translated better, and I might be willing to (ironically) start a new RfC that requires translation such that like 80% of the community according to babel will understand it, before the RfC can be cast off.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Come on. The security argument is one of the weakest I have ever heard on this topic. Active accounts are much more likely to be hacked into than ones which nobody has touched for years, especially on smaller wikis like Wikidata. Your analogy also falls short, since elected officials remain accountable to the public, while janitors only remain accountable to their boss. Adminship is unfortunately much more oriented towards the elected official, with downward accountability rather than the other way around. Both roles tend to remove those who do nothing, by electing a different person in the example of a senator, or firing a janitor. Finally, I'd much prefer to judge people based on their actions rather than motivations here. If an admin is staying around just because they are an admin, but are making positive contributions, there is no reason to change anything. They still understand the policies, and any action by them is a net positive because it is one less thing that another volunteer needs to do. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, this is starting to sound like "sour grapes" because the losing side doesn't like how the RFC came out. If you want to take on the task of notifying all inactive admins, you are more than welcome to do so, but coming with pitchforks after anyone who does not follow this and made the requests on Meta, and thus forcing your ethics and your opinions on other people when the community did not require this is completely beyond the pale and unacceptable, in my book. --Rs chen 7754 23:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Even on that RfC with minimal participation a majority of people supported informing admins before desysopping. The "ethics" and "opinions" that I (or others) are supposedly "forcing" onto people just happen to be the mean opinion. The comments by yourself and some of the other people here are thus very ironic, saying that those who support warning for inactivity don't have the right to maintain that majority opinion, but I guess those in the minority have every right to not do that and also try to prevent further discussion on it? Really, this is quite strange. You asked on IRC how to fix RfC. Maybe changing it so that there is no minority rule, so that the majority opinion doesn't lose on an RfC? Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't agree with how it was closed then. Well let me ask, then have you made an effort to discuss the close with the administrator who closed the RFC? before coming here and discussing this, even? --Rs chen 7754 23:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome in this case, I think a 50%+1 rule for RFCs is bogus. Such a rule just causes less justification and legitimation, as such slight majorities can change pretty fast. Coming to this case, the "majority opinion" didn't lose as warning these users wasn't even forbidden or anything similar, so I fail to see your point here. Vogone talk 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

This is honestly ridiculous. Both of you complain that the decision has been made, and that nobody has the right to question it - that we are butthurt from losing. Then you both come here and rag on those who bring it up again to an equal extent as those who started this thread. The irony is larger than the unnecessary drama! Vogone, if I wasn't clear enough before, the point is this; You two have been complaining about this being brought up again, seeing it as a closed issue. I am providing an answer to why that isn't the case; that when the majority of participants in a discussion (representing a tiny minority of the overall editor base here) agreed that warning admins is good, and that doesn't happen, then there will be a questioning of the legitimacy of that decision. Any talk of legitimacy is hilarious when you support that 44% of the contributors to a discussion should have their opinion prevail. That isn't how legitimacy works. I generally would like greater than just 50%+1 to determine consensus, but on such a small point as warning admins before desysopping them... Whatever. I have better things to do than continue a pissing contest on the internet. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That's great, but I was not involved in closing the RFC, so your comments are a bit misdirected. --Rs chen 7754 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you read Rschen7754's comments as mine as I just explained why I generally, isolated from this case, oppose a 50%+1 rule above, nothing more. And of course neither side has "won" as the question in the RFC was "yes" or "no" and the outcome "no consensus" (= it neither became "forbidden" nor mandatory). Vogone talk 00:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

My comments to you are WRT your question on the IRC about why people were still discussing this, and addressing the ridiculousness of your arguments about this being brought up because the losers were upset. It was brought up because the result of the RfC was completely void of legitimacy, with a minority opinion prevailing - that is all I was trying to accomplish here. I have no intention of debating that closure, since that would accomplish nothing other than more useless drama, and it sounds like people will just manually warn instead. Sorry if the intent of my comments was lost in the delivery. Have a nice day. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What is also concerning is that Wikidata:Administrators/Inactivity is not linked from Wikidata:Administrators and is only in English. We need a better system - a bot can be used to do these notifications. However, admins are expected to remain updated on things like this, so it's their responsibility to notice, as the logic apparently goes. (These two were not the only desysopped, lukas²³ was also desysopped)--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yeah we can warn. But not we should. Recently we had RFC about related this issue. Wikidata:Requests for comment/Inactive admin. There is no no consensus for require for making the warning I think. Wikidata:Administrators/Inactivity it is not official system. --DangSunM (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I just want to made a point that 2 admins are inactive since Aug. Hmm warning is only good for who active but didn't made actions I think. --DangSunM (talk) 21:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not really, by default people get emailed when their talk pages are edited, so they'd also receive the notice via email. Can we just have a bot do this? There's no harm in letting that part being done automatically, then people wouldn't have to keep remembering about this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no harm in warning people, and automating it makes it so we don't forget this again. T C N7JM 23:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this needs any further discussion. It is pretty clear that the community is splitted regarding this topic and there will always be someone who isn't justified by outcomes of RFCs etc. Discussing this further is just a waste of time as all points for and against were mentioned several times already. Vogone talk 23:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Vogone. We had an RfC and it was closed. Nothing more to discuss. Now, if people wish to dispute my RfC closures (like people have done in the past), I'd appreciate having them at my talkpage instead of a public noticeboard used for communication and requests involving all administrators. Thank you, John F. Lewis (talk) 23:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource is coming on January 14!

Please read over Wikidata:Wikisource and make sure that we are good to go for the launch! --Rs chen 7754 07:34, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed!

Admin help needed here. Also, please direct all your future comments there. - Jayadevp13 11:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, see user talk page - Hoo man (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, these kind of blocks are not covered by our blocking policy and thus should be avoided in future cases, especially since such "wikibreak blocks" do not really make any sense. Vogone talk 13:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that everything has to be covered by a policy. If somebody wants to be blocked for a specified time, I can see no reason to refuse this wish. IW 13:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should game with our sysop tools … at the end we end up setting abuse filters for users so that they cannot edit specific pages or confusing other stuff like that. It's better not to accept such senseless requests. Though, if it at least had a senseful purpose one could think about an exception to our policy, but this is probably not the case here. Vogone talk 13:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why we shouldn't block someone if they request it. We already delete user pages, remove user rights, etc. on the request of a user. Setting up abuse filters just for a user would be going a little far though... --Jakob (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That user rights are assigned/removed on request is just normal and we have a process for it (RFP resp. RFP/R). Deleting pages on author request is also something we consider a valid reason for a deletion request and this is also senseful in most cases. But blocking users on request is just pointless, in my eyes gaming and not covered by any policy (as opposed to deleting user pages, removing user rights). Vogone talk 15:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If someone feels that he needs a wiki break for his own health/mind/career/whatever or for the benefit of the project, but he would fail to keep himself from editing if he could, then why not help him if we are able to do so with one little action. I know this is absolutely common on dewiki, and it seems to be so on enwiki, too - is there any major Wikimedia project such requests are declined on a regular basis? --YMS (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Usually, I don't see any problem either with granting such requests. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you aren't successful with your wikibreak there are also other methods like for example changing your account's password to something random etc. … Vogone talk 17:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia, unless they changed the policy in the last couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Stewards also decline self-requests for global (b)locks. Vogone talk 18:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Because local blocks are completely different to a global lock... John F. Lewis (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, because such self-requests are not within the scope of global (b)locks. Vogone talk 18:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, Global locks are the same as local blocks. For first we don't even have a block policy. In turn with WD:UCS this type of block is perfectly acceptable whether a single user disagrees, whether it is within the scope or not. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "Global locks are the same as local blocks" and yes, we do have a "blocking policy". And yes, UCS tells me that these blocks are gaming and thus shouldn't be performed (whether that opinion is accepted in the community is anither question and currently under discussion here). And I don't understand why policies/guidelines necessarily need to be violated for no good reason. Vogone talk 18:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally think that allowing self-requested locks and self-requested blocks are a bad idea, but I don't really think it's a huge deal. --Rs chen 7754 18:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Abuse log is wrong

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 57815

It seems that 127.0.0.1 is tripping the abuse filter a lot despite the fact that it hasn't edited since June. It seems that the abuse log is somehow attributing abuse-filter tripping edits made by other users to localhost. What's going on? --Jakob (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a known bug with page moves from Wikipedia/Wikivoyage/Commons which the software automatically applies to Wikidata. Please see bugzilla:57815 - Hoo man (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it should be done by a named account (like User:MediaWiki default) so the filter can exclude it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Or the filter could exclude 127.0.0.1 because the IP address isn't used by normal users anyway (from what I understand). The Anonymouse [talk] 05:35, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism and link removal on Wikidata

Hello colleagues, I think it is time to think about this topic, vandalism and especially link removal on Wikidata. In the recent time I've seen more and more users, mainly ips, that try to help the project but did not read any guidelines and make a more or less huge mess to our database. The main problem is that we cannot simply revert those changes because, on the one hand the items are often edited by bots directly after the vandalism, and on the other hand sitelinks that have been removed from one item and added to another require a lot of work for refactoring and reverting. I am also not entirely sure how we can prevent this issues as there are lots of unwatched items and we cannot check every ip's edit. Also I don't know how the Wikipedias' editors are currently contributing, as this was also a main idea of anti-vandalism work. One option would be to disallow ips to remove sitelinks but this would hurt our wiki concepts in a very basic way. However, we must find a solution as vandalism won't decrease but there will more and more ips either vandalizing or sometimes even worse, trying to make the database better in a way we cannot accept. Best regards, -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 12:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right, cleaning up after someone who tried to clean up and actually made a mess with it, is a pain in the ass, see e.g. the section #vandalism?. However, I have not seen cases like this too often (99% of the link removals are just that: link removals; and those, User:LinkRecoveryBot is able to revert since a couple of days).

I'm not sure though whether we really can't "check every ip's edit". In this moment, the last 100 unpatrolled IP edits go two hours back. So with some more people actively patrolling, we might manage to patrol all IP edits (maybe some user scripts e.g. to patrol several revisions or all edits of one user/IP at once could help here). And even if not, the unpatrolled (IP) edits already are little enough to overview big parts of them when checking the RC a couple of times a day. Though of course, especially things like those sitelink removals can be hard to judge if the removed or the remaining sitelinks involve languages you don't speak. However, we're probably missing quite some opportunities to detect and revert vandalism and unskilled cleanups early by bugzilla:44874 - Wikidata edits are not displayed in Wikipedia watchlists using the enhanced format, so many Wikipedians won't notice the item for their article just got vandalized.

And I think you made a good point with mentioning the bots editing items just after other users. While it should probably not be strictly forbidden to do so by chance, I think it should at least be discouraged to actively monitor RC to see what items could be edited now (some bots seem to do so, e.g. User:ThieolBot). --YMS (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I stopped my bot for the moment. I am going to change it. The bot will check last modification date of an item and leave a period of one week before any update.If any other proposition or idea ? --Thieol (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

List of removed and not reconnected links: User:KrBot/Lost links. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Great list, thanks. I handled most items involving dewiki sitelink removals for now, and made two small observations: First, about half of the edits I checked have not been vandalism but incomplete corrections (I always expect that from sitelink removals, but this high rate surprised me a bit), and second, the bot list contains the removal of de:Naturallohn (from Q1969070). However, that article has been transformed into a redirect months ago, and therefore that link can't be re-added without playing some tricks. The redirect target, de:Sachbezug already is linked to some other item, and from a quick look I guess that link is correct. So the report should probably ignore cases like this. --YMS (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirects like de:Naturallohn are excluded now. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource is coming in 1 week!

Apologies for using English; please help by translating this message!

Wikisource is coming in 1 week, on Tuesday, January 14! Help us prepare for the deployment at Wikidata:Wikisource. Specifically, we need your input in determining how Wikidata items will be created and used for each Wikisource page. Please join the discussion at Wikidata talk:Wikisource, and notify anyone who is interested in the discussion. --Rs chen 7754 08:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC) (using MassMessage)

194.83.236.250 (talk • contribs • logs)

This anonymous users vandalised Q286751. Maybe a block is needed. --Wiki13 _talk 15:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped, though. Vogone talk 15:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 days (on my mobile phone). Stryn (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It's a bit on the late side, I guess, but you don't want this continue, right? --Wiki13 _talk 15:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You sure you don't want to come back as an admin? :P --Rs chen 7754 06:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wikibase-item-summary-wbmergeitems-to

Can somebody with a Translatewiki-account change translatewiki:MediaWiki:Wikibase-item-summary-wbmergeitems-to/sv to

Slå samman objekt med "$3"

merci! The current translation is correct word by word, but it does not make sense in the present context. -- Lavallen (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done --Rippitippi (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Succu

I'have blocked succu for 6 hour because it use his user like bot and flooding Recent changes, it is impossible search vandalism in this condition feel free to umblock his before if I have wrong--Rippitippi (talk) 03:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with this block. I'm not going to unblock, because doing so could constitute wheel warring, but the community has not really reached consensus on whether such users need to get flood flags.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd likewise prefer blocks like this to not happen. Ajraddatz (Talk) 06:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

~~Actually, we *did* reach consensus on this: Wikidata:Requests for comment/Bot policy. This was an improper block and should be reversed.~~ --Rs chen 7754 06:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sad story. Succu is a valuable contributor. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I've reversed the block. --Rs chen 7754 06:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And even worse, Rippitippi provided no explanation for the block on the user's talk page, and no offer to unblock once the bot was stopped. --Rs chen 7754 06:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking a bit further, it does seem that this was a bot run on the main account, as it started up immediately on the expiration of the first block for 1 hour: [1] So under the right circumstances, a block could have been justified. However, the block(s) should have been explained, and a warning could have been given first. Rs chen 7754 06:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I also think there should have been a warning or some other try to communicate first. Please also note that it's not "impossible search vandalism" if an autopatroller is "flooding Recent changes", as 99.9 % of all vandalism should appear in the RC with patrolled edits hidden. Of course it still has disadvantages if one user fills all recent changes with patrolled edits, but it's not like Wikidata immediately becomes uncontrollable by this so there's no time to talk. --YMS (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking a look at the user's talk page, I am concerned that Succu knows that we have a bot policy, and is willfully disregarding it. If he restarts his bot on his main account, I give my permission for any administrator to reblock, and would not consider it wheel warring. --Rs chen 7754 09:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, as he has restarted his bot, and refuses to abide by the policies, I have had to block his account indefinitely until such time as he agrees to follow the bot policy. --Rs chen 7754 09:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked. It turns out that he has an approved bot account (though not for his particular task), but was not using it. We may need to have an educational campaign about how the bot policy works, it seems. --Rs chen 7754 09:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

They added the task to the list of bot requests for approval, I kindly ask everybody to comment there.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754: SuccuBot is really in use: He use SuccuBot for fully automatic edits and use his main account for semi automatic edits .--GZWDer (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering that the bot appears to have run unattended for the entire duration of the first block, it appears to be fully automatic. --Rs chen 7754 18:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rschen7754:Succu have a bot but he used his account as a fully automatic bot I have write to him with no response, I try to block it for 1 hour but at the end the bot started again so I blocked it for 6 hours, waiting for other users could comment on this issue if I have done something wrong my apologies to you and succu --Rippitippi (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Dear Rippitippi, I stumbled over this discussion lately. You did not respond to my question on my discussion page. But I have general question: Why did my unintended script run harms wikidata? --Succu (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I had not seen the question,because you must use your bot user for fully automatic edit, a side effect is the flooding of recent changes page --Rippitippi (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

possible vandalism of User:Superchilum

Please, rollback the edits of User:Superchilum on Q654302. I don't know why he (or she) disconnect interwikis on disambiguation pages into Q15623675 and Q15623681. --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a vandalism. You should read Wikidata:Disambiguation pages task force/guidelines: "The item should only contain links to Wikipedia disambiguation pages with the exact same spelling". --Stryn (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

But it is not useful, because for example the words Group, Gruppe, Grupa, Группа, Група etc. are the same word with the same meaning but written in different writing systems. It is wrong to disconnect this pages. --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If a word really has only one meaning, there's usually no need for a disambiguation page, isn't it? And what's with people named Gruppe, towns named Group, music albums titles Grupa, for example? --YMS (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if you want exactness, these words have almost the same set of meanings. And this is the case of Transcriptions (see point 2 in this guidelinies). --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And people named Gruppe, towns named Group, music albums titles Grupa are not problem, because many links between information is much better than few (or no) links. Disconnecting of this pages breaks useful links, and it is very bad. --Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Stryn answered correctly. The only thing I'd like to add is that if I misunderstood some transcriptions from cyrillic I'm obviously sorry and ready to correct. But "almost the same meaning" is not enough for disambiguation pages, they must have "the exact same spelling". They don't have to be connected because of their meaning, but for their spelling. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 16:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC) p.s.: please, at the end of this discussion, please revert your edits on Q654302 and correlated pages

I must agree that I am not particularly fond of this rigid interpretation of what a disambiguation page should be. A page like Q382618 should be split when the "identical spelling rule" is followed in a strict manner, but that would throw away that really English "continuity", German "Kontinuität" and Dutch "continuïteit" are more than somewhat related. When I see in this vote that a majority is against any rules, be it a non decisive one, it would be wise to reconsider this guideline. We shouldn't be a wastebin for encyclopedic value. Lymantria (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC) P.S. When I mention "continuity" here, one could as easily read "group". Splitting this item is IMHO anti encyclopedic.

it was a clear and participated decision of the community, and I agree with the final decision (how can you say when meanings have to be splitted and when they don't?). But if you want to re-discuss it, no problem, I'll stop my contributions in the disambiguation pages until the situation is clearer. --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think it wise that there is some reconsideration before Q662524 is split into single language items, although I understand that it may be hard to find good rules to deal with. Agreed? Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

that is a different situation, since there are real disambiguation pages (e.g. en or pt) and encyclopedic articles (e.g. it or de). --Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 17:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

but the disambiguation pages included have exactly the same disambiguation to be dealt with, be it with completely different spellings. Lymantria (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Undent: It seems to me that the rule is meant more to deal with when there are many possible disambiguations of like terms needed. Splitting disambiguation items definitely doesn't seem right, if no one has seen fit to change them prior. For other cases, we definitely do need to be rigid. --Izno (talk) 21:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Started a discussion here. Lymantria (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Q28170

Please, update / revision this item for correct representing / showing in ukwiki. Just showing as Q28170, instead Макс Брукс, see, f.e., https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%B7_%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B8%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8F_%D1%81%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B4_%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B1%D1%96 (template).-- Володимир Ф (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. I wonder why didn't you do it by yourself? --Stryn (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess he just did not know what to do. Владимир, если ещё будут такие проблемы, добавьте в элемент данных украинское название.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Stryn and Ymblanter! This item was. I would like to update the data, but have not found how do it. I have very little experience working with Wikidata, therefore I remove and save ukwiki. Will be study :). Starting with MediaWiki talk:Gadget-labelLister.js. I use Google Chrome.-- Володимир Ф (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Create here a user page, add the {{Babel}} template and indicate Ukrainian as one of the languages you speak. This would simplify your life enormously.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Q3938

Many IPs make test edits on it. This item should be semi-protected.--GZWDer (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done Not enough vandalism to justify protection. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

ElphiBot 3

Does the bot operator have to be skilled in bot programming too? Elph admits that he is «not able to fix the problems», and ElphiBot 2 was in fact denied. If I understood correctly, Snaevar is comfortable with approving the task, while Ladsgroup and Legoktm are not. What about others? --Ricordi samoa 22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said before in my opinion someone who wants to run bots in here need to know how to program a bot (in order fix the situation in cases of mess-ups) because a simple mistake in here may reflect in more than 300 wikis and responsibility of the operator is a very big deal for me that I couldn't see in Elph as you can see my comments in the second RfBA Amir (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More than three user run the same bot while not fluent in the fixing of the problems when they occur. ElphiBot 2 was about another task.--Abbas 18:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Name them please. about your second comment at the answer I wrote "responsibility of the operator is a very big deal for me". Responsibility is not related to the task, it's related to manner Amir (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is about Does the bot operator have to be skilled in bot programming too not about names. and about responsibility you can read what i told you in 3th RfBA again.--Abbas 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

ValterVBot

I've just blocked ValterVBot. It seems to be adding mistaken descriptions. As a sample:

(change visibility) 22:39, 15 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . Kategoriya:Rhopalopselion (Q14995599) ‎ (‎Changed French
description:  Replace Wikimédia with Wikimedia) (current) [rollback 2 edits]

I'll notify User:ValterVB momentarily. --Jakob (talk) 22:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've notified him now. --Jakob (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mistaken? How so? The edit summary is in accordance with a bot request, I believe it was. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I have stopped, but I don't see the problem. What is wrong? (see also Wikidata:Bot_requests#Add_descriptions --ValterVB (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I do apologize. Since edit summaries are usually like Changed language_name description: new description name, it looked from the bots contribs that it was changing the descriptions to "Replace Wikimédia with Wikimedia" not actually replacing Wikimédia with Wikimedia. I've unblocked now. --Jakob (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. --ValterVB (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@King jakob c 2: This is a very worrying pattern, especially since you've claimed to have addressed this concern in your RfB here. The next time something like this occurs, it would likely result in more talk about desysopping you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: If it makes anyone feel better, I'd be willing to agree not to use the block button anymore. --Jakob (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a general problem with your actions, blocks being the most obvious ones but also things like the mistake you made with the abuse filter - i.e. a general lack of caution I'm seeing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Qbot

Is Qbot an unauthorised bot account? Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

They do not have a bot flag. I advised them to apply for permission. If they start editing again before applying, I think a block would be in order.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

No, just look at [2]. This bot is flagged on viwiki and automatically moves pages which has also effect to Wikidata. Not sure if a flag is needed for this kind of bot. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the above comment does only apply to the contributions linked. There are also edits to Wikidata itself which are controversial. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

What is controversial?

If the viwiki-community has authorised this bot to do this, I am not sure we can overrule their opinions. What knoledge do we have in vi: and the policys about pagenames on viwiki? If the user promise to do only these kind of edits here, I think we can add some words about it in the bot-userpage, so it not will be blocked unintensionally. And if the activity is flooding RC, it can have a flood-flag. -- Lavallen (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing a lot of interwikis is controversial. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I missed that among the edits I checked. -- Lavallen (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This actually is problematic in general. People unwittingly edit Wikidata when they move pages on other projects. I can see potential for things like this to recur in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
However I think page moving bots are still rare. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 08:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
It happens time to time in Wikisource Page-namespace, but we are not including those here (yet), and we maybe never will. -- Lavallen (talk) 09:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

User:GPUBot

I have blocked the above bot for importing really bad data (see this edit, where the image does not exist).

When the bot owner has corrected his code, I have advised him that he may have the block undone by myself or per a request here. --Izno (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good for me. But we do need to clarify exactly when bots should be blocked, as the previous thread about @Jakec: blocking a bot wouldn't have needed to happen if we were clear about when bots can and shouldn't be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that another guideline will solve this problem. In such cases we are adviced to use common sense as no policy can cover all this situations. The block by Jakec could have easily been prevented if he had used common sense and looked at the contributions a bit more detailed. Also blocking without checking is anyhow a bad practise but I think a guideline like "look at the contributions before blocking" is quite obvious. Best regards. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 07:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

My general feeling is that bot-blocks aren't really harmful (to the botter), and they certainly prevent the disruption caused by a continued incorrect run. In some cases like Jake's, my feeling is that admins should be a touch more clueful, but I also think that mistakes are mistakes and should be forgiven with a light admonition. In general though, I like to post here when I block what is usually a constructive editor (or bot) as it is a useful place to see if my block has a consensus (more-or-less in agreement with WD:Blocking policy, which probably needs an update as the wording there does not permit my block, actually, as I would not say a wrong bot is necessarily abuse...). A one line addition at WD:Blocking policy may be appropriate. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@Izno: Totally agree. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 15:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I would have done it now, if it wasn't for that the page uses the translation-extension. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Izno: You were right to block my bot, I made an error not to check if the image exists on Commons. I have corrected my code : can you unblock my bot ? GautierPoupeau (talk) 21:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked by Izno. -- Lavallen (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Q7697874

Hi. It began yesterday evening that I can no more add interwikis to the wikidata items. E.g., as I trying to add wikilink to be-x-old:Катэгорыя:Гандбалісты на летніх Алімпійскіх гульнях 1984 году here, I press «add» below, and new string emerges, but without fields for language code and page name. Similar trouble is for labels and descriptions: they have empty fields, but whatever I enter — «save» button remains inactive. Why? --Taravyvan Adijene (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

An attempt to edit labels list ends with the following error: «A string was expected, but not found in the json for the langCode 0 and argument 'value'» for any language code. Changing interface language also doesn't helps. --Taravyvan Adijene (talk) 10:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I feel as I am banned from editing, because I still can add labels/descriptions anonimously after logout. :) More interesting is that updating labels using gadget is still possible while logged in. --Taravyvan Adijene (talk) 10:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Lydia_Pintscher_(WMDE): See above. Sounds like a techy problem. --Izno (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem resolved at IRC thanks to <hoo>. The reason was Twinkle gadget enabled for me yesterday. After disabling it everything works now. --Taravyvan Adijene (talk) 16:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoping there is an administrator or another editor versed in this area to help with Template:Navbar, Template:Navbox and it's related modules. The Navbar is broken. Early today I attempted to import an English Wikipedia template, which resulted in a bug in MediaWiki importing the history of Wikidata modules into the template namespace, resulting in it overwriting the history of existing templates (i.e the history of Module:Navbar overwriting Template:Navbar and placing a module inside the template. I believe I've fixed a majority of the issues from this bug on the pages this caused a problem on, including Navbox. Navbar is still broken though and Navbars won't appear on navigational box templates we have, such as {{Authority control properties}}. Help getting navbars back on would be appreciated. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 09:21, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, regarding the Authority control properties template, the template is configured so that it does not show the navbar. This is done in it´s code with |navbar = off. If the template should have the navbar, then please remove that line from the code, and set |state = to plain. That way the title of the template is centered.

Could you clarify what is wrong with Navbar, apart from the fact that Module:Navbar is being used instead of Template:Navbar ?--Snaevar (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem wasn't that a module was being used, it was that the history of Module:Navbar was imported onto Template:Navbar through a bug, when I attempted an import from en.wiki. The issue regarding it's function seem to be resolved now, thanks. I'll report the bug elsewhere. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 14:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

User:GPUBot 2

the user stopped the bot, I see no reason to block Amir (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think if he promised that the bot is fixed and then again imports such a mess we have to think if we need this kind of bots. -- Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

the first problem wasn't the same as the new one, if happened again we'll do something Amir (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Dunglish

Deze pagina is het laatst bewerkt op 24 jan 2014 om 08:32.
		Alle gestructureerde gegevens uit de hoofdnaamruimte en de naamruimte Eigenschap zijn beschikbaar onder de licentie Creative Commons CC0;
 tekst in de andere naamruimten is beschikbaar onder de licentie Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike; 
er kunnen extra voorwaarden van toepassing zijn. Zie Gebruiksvoorwaarden voor details.

Dutch translation above is pretty good, but:

still contains too much English i.e. is available in Dutch as far as I know e.g. de licentie Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike; may or should, (could or would) {Moscow) be: Creative Commons naamvermelding/gelijk delen if I remember well.^[1]
no version number? we have 2.5, 3.0 and even 4 is underway Greetings and salutations from Klaas|Z4␟V: 08:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC) (before I wrote thiswithout logging in so my IP-address was visible)

↑ Creative Commons Nederlands

Block request

Awadh Managements (talk • contribs • logs) appears to be a promotion-only account (see Special:DeletedContributions/Awadh_Managements). Combined with the username, a block is probably in order. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Done John F. Lewis (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jakob (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dorofeyev (Q4166961)

That's a mistake: in en-wiki - football player, in ru-wiki - general. Тр. Андрей (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Done--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

[1] Creative Commons Nederlands

[1]